It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish

would you say that there is released footage that exists, perhaps that you can show me, that clearly shows a plane about to hit, or video of it, hitting the pentagon?


I would say "no". - none exists. All these claims about "thousands" of cameras, or it being the most secured and surveilled building anywhere are just that - claims. I can tell you it's harder to get on a SAC base and into a building than it is to get into the Pentagon. I can also tell you for a fact that (as noted previously), there was little surveillance on that side of the building for a very good reason - there was no public access. The only people who ever came in that side arrived by helicopter, and otherwise those doors were always locked and not even manned.

That being said - what I can offer you for proof is the following: Watch the videos of the interviews with folks who dispute the OS flight path. Their descriptions are bad for the OS - but ironically, also good. To a man - they all say it was a plane (not a global hawk which would be difficult to confuse) they saw.

Fair?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
No pilot can skillfully fly a plane going 500+mph only feet off the ground.


Says who? That's just hypothesis because no pilot has actually attempted it. Except of course the hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon. And they proved you can fly and control a plane at that speed only a few feet above the ground.


It was NOT a plane.


How could it not be when it was?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Mr. Wendel, do you have a short memory? It was you that got me riled up last time.. You have the same MO every time, not realizing your talking to the same person, due to the name change.

You did the exact same thing last time.. You asked innocent questions that had a hint of being leading, then you started to try and discredit my memory of the day... Your tactic is obvious and your openness to believe is a slivers width... You have your mind made up with little flash phrases and slivers of "theories", that when well placed, create the story YOU want to believe.

Previous names of mine Mobius - Resurectio - if that helps.
edit on 6/21/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)



You sure you do not have me mixed up with someone else? I do not spend much time on the 9/11 forum and my posting here is even less. Can you tell me what thread this supposedly happened in? I would love to see it.

and I would love to know how asking you if the plane was on the North or South side of the Citgo building is leading at all?
edit on 21-6-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheeTheChad
 


Asking questions that have already been answered, makes you "something."

Believing every single morsel that backs your story and NONE that disproves it is "something"

Some people take pride in what they say and think. Some of us would like to try and "snap out of it" some of the folks that have been drawn into the profitable, hypocritical and frankly insulting "movement"

There is something honest about the movement... I often think "movement" when I think of the movement.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Why are you trying to sell your own credibility?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Just asking for the millionth time, why if the plane skimmed so low over the lawn, there is no disturbance on it, and, if it went so low and angled, prior to the plane entering the building, one of the engines should have hit the ground and buried itself. Anyone care to enlighten me?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


i'm refering to nearby gas stations security cameras that were pointed close enough at the pentagon that they would have captured evidence that could have proved THIS THREAD correct or incorrect
footage from bystanders, civilians, with video cameras which were taken, again the footage contained could have been very useful to this thread as well as a nearby hotel security camera which, again could have been very helpful to this thread's discussion

all this footage taken by men in suits, taken by the government pushing 'the official story' but not to be released to help prove the official story


Someone who's quicker on the draw than I am beat me to responding to this. The Citgo footage has been released and it showed absolutely nothing, meaning this is yet another red herring being thrown out by the conspiracy mongors in desperation.

As far as I'm concerned, the preponderance of the eyewitness accounts as well as the photographs of the wreckage strewn throughout the lawn as well as inside the building conclusively proves that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon...namely since the black box was recovered and it was shown to have come from flight 77. This supposed conspiracy is clearly a product of your own imagination rather than being based upon the available facts, so grasping to the faith that some hoped for smoking gun evidence will miraculously appear to save your cause "some day" is entirely an exercise in excuse making on your part in avoiding having to abandon your conspiracy stories like road kill.


i'd like to state my opinion on the subject, rather than a missile or "no plane" i think a drone was used, one that looked similiar to a plane ( to the untrained eye ) along with possibly being painted to look like a boeing passenger plane


It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing entirely to insist your opinion is true when all the available facts says it is not.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


Are you implying that an engine would bury itself into a steel reinforced concrete floor while traveling at a 10 to 15 degree angle? Can you provide pictures of reference to these engines that "should have been burrowed into the ground" provide a previous situation (other than 93 that hit nearly straight down)

Lets do a little test .... go out into your sand box, take a battery and throw it at a 30 degree angle.. now throw it straight down, the differences should be obvious.. Now imagine steel reinforced 4000+ concrete flooring...

Mute point!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by TheeTheChad
 



There is something honest about the movement... I often think "movement" when I think of the movement.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


My apologies, I did have you confused with another poster. For that I apologize.

Here is the link to where I have described in detail my Sept. 11th 2001.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Look people put it too rest the government got over on you, instead of being mad just enjoy how clever this cover up happened, first planes did hit the world trade center and when TPTB knew they couldn't get anymore people out they used a controlled demolition to take it down, but they couldn't admit they brought down the buildings with people still alive inside so they told a B.S story...now just pretend that the fake story is true and let it go.

Also sure George Bush knew of a planned attack before it happened the president of Iran told him something like this was gonna happen the night before it did but we as people should just follow the lies like cattle...and enjoy it.

Now as far as a plane hitting the pentagon just ignore the fact that there was no video of it and that it didn't look like a plane wreck...we as people should just let them do and say what they want and drop it once and for all....


Joking a side i believe we should let it go as much as a cartoon convincing me that a plane hit the pentagon...come on OP you gotta do better then that....
edit on 21-6-2011 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


And a plane could NOT cleanly penetrate 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete. No way, no how. Those planes are effectively flying tin cans.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheeTheChad
I just have a question, since I bring nothing new to the table of 9/11 discussion. (who has recently?)

To those trying to back up the official story, why? That's all. The Majority of people I talk to believe the official story, very few people I know question it. Why feel the need to try and change the opinions of a minority? on a conspiracy site no less.



I know I get involved in these conversations because I don't like seeing lies and fabrications past along as facts and proof. Does that answer your question?


Says it better than I could've right there.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I want to know how many people saw the alleged plane in the Pentagon incident and how many actually saw it crash into the Pentagon. I'm not really sure exactly what that fragmented video clip shows...the only one yet to be released, but it's hardly conclusive. Isn't the Pentagon the most secured structure in the world?
If not...then where have all our tax dollars been spent? Defense takes the biggest chunk out of tax payer dollars. And it's not something that just happened post 9/11. Defense has always taken the biggest chunk.
How is it that our intelligence and security implementations failed at all levels when it came to 9/11?
Not buying it.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Airplanes don't disappear in concrete walls..



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Allot of posters feed the conspirator a bunch of bs to get stars and such, because they understand how a conspirators brain works, but me, I just try to give hard factual realistic evidence that they can learn from.
I hate tricking people or deceiving them just for a couple of stars, it is not good to do that, especially towards your fellow posters.

The truth is a airplane hit the pentagon and that’s just that.


I think you're right about a plane hitting the pentagon, but it wasn't a Boeing 757.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


Are you implying that an engine would bury itself into a steel reinforced concrete floor while traveling at a 10 to 15 degree angle? Can you provide pictures of reference to these engines that "should have been burrowed into the ground" provide a previous situation (other than 93 that hit nearly straight down)

Lets do a little test .... go out into your sand box, take a battery and throw it at a 30 degree angle.. now throw it straight down, the differences should be obvious.. Now imagine steel reinforced 4000+ concrete flooring...

Mute point!!!



Now that you mention it, is not the 93 the second plane that vaporized on impact that day? Not that in 20 years of spotting planes Ive never seen a plane "vaporize" on impact. And no, the engines should have skipped on the ground, most likely due to the alleged speed the alleged planes was travelling, and imbedded themselves deeply in the pentagon, too bad we just have 1 hole that goes through the rings, and not 2 as the engine's numbers on the plane...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Theres more than enough people on here to say what you presented was not conclusive or evidence of any kind, what makes me curious is how you can think that cartoon told the truth when their was not 150 foot hole or damage, the only hole was something like 20 feet in diameter. and no structural damage on either side of the hole, hell you can even see a book on a stand still in tact.

If that isn't enough, the "plane" must have been flying without its engines, being as each of the twin Rolls Royce engines weigh around 17 tons. And all the debris found was twisted metal, nothing matching a 767.

I used to believe 9/11 was caused by terrorists, but you just cant fit a square peg into a circular hole.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


No offence, but I don't see full detail of what happened in your day (that part of it). Were you driving on the highway, or just sitting? Was there traffic? If so, roughly how fast was it going? I'm neither for, nor against, whether a plane hit the building, or not. I was not there and I was not involved. I'm just trying to draw conclusions to the best of my ability. Thanks, and again, no offence intended.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
seems to me that contrary to the original post and thread title, there is actually no 100% conclusive evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, hence the debate continues




top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join